An American official
said today that the U.S. believes a single surface-to-air missile caused
the crash of an Malaysia Airlines plane in Ukraine today, potentially
answering one of a host of questions about the tragedy, but leaving two
big ones: If that’s true, who fired the missile, and was the plane the
real target?
Ukrainian
officials said that they suspected a Russian-built surface-to-air
missile system was responsible for the crash and blamed Russian-trained
separatists for hitting the civilian airliner.
U.S.
officials, including those from various intelligence agencies, said
they’re still gathering information about the incident and have declined
to comment about who is believed to be responsible. The U.S. official
who said a single missile had been used also said it was unclear if the
missile was fired from territory in Ukraine or Russia.
Richard
Clarke, former White House counter-terrorism advisor and ABC News
consultant, said that if a Russian surface-to-air missile system was
used, that wouldn’t necessarily point to who exactly pulled the trigger –
whether the Ukrainian military, the Russian military or pro-Russian
separatists in eastern Ukraine.
Malaysia Airlines Plane Brought Down by Missile in Ukraine, US Official SaysMalaysia Airlines Plane Downed in Ukraine, Witness Says 'Bodies Everywhere'
Who Will End Up With the Malaysia Airlines Black Box?
There
is also more than one system to consider. A statement from the U.S.
Embassy in Kiev earlier today noted that Ukrainian military analysts
believe the Russian-made SA-17 Grizzly, or BUK-M2 as it’s known in
Russia, may have fired the fatal shot.
“If
true, this represents a significant escalation,” the Embassy said. The
Embassy described the SA-17 as a “sophisticated system requiring a whole
suite of radar and command vehicles.”
The
SA-17 Grizzly is one of the more recent of the Russian BUK family of
medium-range surface-to-air missile systems. Unlike shoulder-fired,
MANPAD rockets, which have a limited range, the SA-17 is a large, mobile
missile system fired from military vehicles that can reach tens of
thousands of feet in the air – more than high enough to hit a jetliner
at cruising altitude, according to an Australian industry analysis of the system.
Developed
by the Russians, the SA-17 system has been a point of pride in Moscow
where it was featured among other weapons systems in Russian Victory Day parades through Red Square. The state-owned Russian news outlet RIA Novosti reported last year that Russian armed forces hoped to upgrade to a newer version of the missile system in 2016.
Prior
to the SA-17, the Russians developed the SA-11 Gadfly, or BUK-M1, which
both the Russian military and the Ukrainian military operate. While
less sophisticated, missiles fired from the SA-11 can still reach more
than high enough to knock out an airliner at cruise altitude, according
to IHS Jane’s Missiles and Rockets editor Doug Richardson.
The
Ukrainian military also has permanent, fixed position surface-to-air
missile systems that would have “no difficulty downing a target flying
at 30,000 feet,” but Richardson said operators for those would “have a
good idea of the air traffic present in the surrounding area, so would
be unlikely to mistake an airliner for a combat aircraft.”
Ukraine
has denied it was responsible, Russian President Vladimir Putin said
“the state over whose territory it happened is responsible,” since the
tragedy “would not have happened if there was peace on this land…” and
Ukrainian Security Services released audio of what it said was intercepted conversations between pro-Russian militants that implicated them in the crash. The rebels have reportedly denied responsibility as well, their leader claiming they don't have the weapons necessary to take down the aircraft.
Last
month, Gen. Philip Breedlove, NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe,
said that the Russian government had been training pro-Russian
separatists inside Russia to have an “anti-aircraft capability.” That
training, Breedlove said, then appeared to flow into Ukraine.
“What
we see in training on the east side of the border is big equipment,
tanks, APCs [Armored Personnel Carriers], anti-aircraft capability, and
now we see those capabilities being used on the west side of the
border,” Breedlove told reporters. Breedlove said he had not seen
training in the smaller MANPAD systems, but, “we have seen vehicle-borne
capability being trained.”
However,
it’s unclear where the separatists may have actually acquired the
missile launchers. A Russian news outlet reported earlier this month a
group of rebels had seized one surface-to-air platform in Ukraine, but NYU professor and Russian-specialist Mark Galeotti wrote
that report was “almost certainly preemptive disinformation.” Galeotti
suspects the plane was brought down by a SA-11 “supplied by the
Russians.” The U.S. State Department has said before Russia is supplying
separatists with heavy weapons.
Steve
Ganyard, former Marine Corps fighter pilot and ABC News consultant,
said that if the Russian missile systems were used by the rebels, the
systems’ complexity could have played a role in the tragedy.
“One
idea, and it’s just an idea, that if this was caused a by shoot-down by
the separatists themselves, they were probably given only very notional
training on this very sophisticated surface-to-air missile systems. So
they may not have been able to use the systems that would’ve identified
this Malaysian aircraft as a civilian jetliner,” he said. “They may have
just seen a target, locked on to it and said, ‘Ready, set, go, we’re
going to fire.’”
A senior
U.S. official agreed that U.S. analysts fear relatively untrained
separatists might have fired wildly, but emphasized that at this point,
it’s all still just a theory.
No comments:
Post a Comment